College Athletes example essay topic

Chad White May 8, 2003 Dr. Mancini Philosophy and Principles of Coaching Critical Issue Paper Paying Athletes for Play The big payoffs for the NCAA basketball championships and the football bowl games sometimes lead observers to conclude that collegiate athletes should be paid. This critical issue has rekindled the emotional debate over whether college athletes should be paid and whether the NCAA is providing fair compensation for the performers in its grandest athletic spectacle. There has been legislation brought before the Governor of Nebraska, Mike Johann's, which would allow the University of Nebraska to pay football players for their efforts. There are two sides to this elusive argument, one side argues that being a student athlete is a full time job so they should see some on the profits from the big commercialized events and the other side believes strongly that the student athletes are given a quality education that is important and valuable in many ways. Maybe it's time to rethink this whole idea of pay for play concept. Originally, and this idea was rooted years ago, back before a college tuition could buy you a house in a nice neighborhood, paying college athletes a monthly stipend made sense from this perspective.

It made sense because playing a sport at the Division 1-A level carries with it a year round commitment that includes pressure, sacrifice and occasional pain and suffering that non athletes usually don't encounter. This is where my debate for paying players has to end. Everyone understands that being a college athlete takes time and effort but that's why the athletes make a decision whether to play or not. Nobody is forcing these kids to play sports.

Since when do we start to believe that these athletes should be paid? The value of an education should be just the incentive to play. In fact, most major college programs are losing money and paying athletes would make a bad situation much worse. In part, colleges have caused their own problems by paying football and basketball coaches ridiculously inflated salaries. I'm not saying that paying coaches these salaries are wrong but let's understand that these salaries must be appropriate for the coach in that position. It is like the arms race, with each multimillion dollar contract bringing on another larger one.

But even without the coaches's alaries, the intercollegiate sports programs are caught in a financial squeeze, with limited revenue streams to cover many sports. The unfortunate solution for many colleges simply has been to drop the sports that don't pay their way, which is almost all of them. This solution shouldn't even be a thought in anyone's head. A successful football program can produce substantial revenue. A successful men's basketball program can bring in money, in much lesser amounts. In pockets throughout the country, women's basketball, baseball, hockey and even lacrosse have modest profits.

Title IX, which mandates that substantially proportionate funding be applied to men's and women's sports, has worsened the financial crunch because the women's sports seldom pay their own way and the women don't play football. Some would like to see Title IX softened or abolished, but Title IX was a long-overdue remedy for an injustice. If playing college sports has value, as the belief is here, women should have as much access to the sports as men. Even if there were enough money to pay collegiate athletes, it would be impossible to set up an equitable system. Should only athletes in money-making sports be paid?

Should football players be paid more than basketball? Should a quarterback be paid more than an offensive lineman, a point guard more than a small forward? Should men be paid and women not or vice versus? In professional sports, these things are easily sorted out, but the problems for collegiate sports are insurmountable. It would be far better to lift restrictions on athletes working to earn more money, especially because so many come from impoverished families, and above all, give them a legitimate education. With too many unanswered questions still, it's not realistic or feasible even to consider paying just football players or men and not women at one intuition or in one conference.

There are some other moves which should be made. The NCAA, which has reduced football scholarships to equalize competition, should make further reductions. That in itself helps economics because less money is paid into scholarships, and we " ve seen that it has also helped equalize competition. When more schools are competitive, more teams are going to be drawing the crowds which pay the bills. The NCAA also should look at putting caps on head coaches's alaries in football and basketball and limiting the number of assistant coaches. That not only would save the assistants's alaries, which is not a huge figure, but substantially would reduce recruiting costs, because there would be fewer coaches recruiting.

Recruiting is also like the arms race if everybody were doing less recruiting; each school would be in the same relative position spending less money. Alumni should be more involved in the no revenue sports. Alumni of the no revenue sports are often in a position to make substantial donations because they " ve been successful in business. Without the crutch of an athletic scholarship or the carrot of fame, they worked hard to excel at their sports in college and learned invaluable lessons. Colleges should be willing to meet the shortfalls in the intercollegiate sports programs if the athletes and programs are meeting the standards of the school. There are too many football and basketball programs in schools around the country that do not, but that should always be the goal.

The new NCAA president, Myles Brand, has made it clear that he is strictly against pay for play. Mr. Brand has stated that, "If athletes want to receive money for their play, there is a way for them to do it; it's called the professional leagues". This belief is the way I look at this situation. There's a reason why athletes don't get paid in college for there efforts. It's that same reason that forces these kids to work hard and try to earn there opportunity to play in the pros for big time money. There's already an attempt to alleviate some strain on athletes with this new opportunity fund, which is directed to push some revenues from college sports television contracts towards certain costs for student athletes, which would include emergency travel to living expenses that are not always included in a school's room and board package.

But, Mr. Brand has made it clear that this fund is in no way an attempt to open the doors for pay for play. In conclusion, a college education is certainly important and valuable enough in many ways. The ability to gain the skills through very strong and proficient coaching that places them in a position to take advantage of their natural athletic ability and move on to the pros. That's the true benefit they receive, as well as they visibility they receive at the big commercialized tournaments or bowls.

Bibliography

Anderson, M. (2003, January).
Athletes often pay the price for NCAA attempts to keep schools on equal footing. Las Vegas Review - Journal, pg. 1 e. Simon ich, M. (2003, March).
Pay for play? Pittsburgh Post - Gazette, section: sports. Britt, B. (2003, March).
If we'd pay the piper, why not the tech football team? Face Facts: Playing is a full time job. Roanoke Times & World News, horizon editorial; pg. 1 Bagnato, A. (2003, April).
NCAA revenue revives pay for play issue. Chicago Tribune, pg. 4 Haugh, D. (2003, February).
Nebraska's pay for play proposal cents - less. South Bend Tribune, Commentary; pg. 1 Bagnato, A. (2003, April).
Fund to help but not pay athletes, some want their share of the $6 billion from televising the NCAA tournament. Chicago Tribune, pg. 3 c H ruby, P. (2003, February).